Legislation Archives

State and local laws for employment-related protection to ex-offenders continue to grow

A new Indiana law (House Enrolled Act 1482) that prohibits employers from asking about or otherwise considering expunged or sealed arrest and conviction records goes into effect July 1, 2013. And a similar North Carolina law (SB 91) takes effect December 1, 2013.

The City of Buffalo too is giving ex-offenders increased employment opportunities with its May 28, 2013 ordinance which amends Chapter 154 of the Code of the City of Buffalo by prohibiting public and private employers and city vendors from asking job candidates about their criminal conviction history during the application process and prior to the first interview. And a new “ban the box” ordinance has been unanimously adopted in Seattle on June 10, 2013 that will give ex-offenders special rights in the job application process. Seattle’s Council Bill 117796 provides for administrative enforcement but affords no private right of action.

Indiana and North Carolina, and Buffalo and Seattle, are just the latest additions to the fast growing list of states and municipalities that regulate the use of criminal records in employment decisions. And pending before Congress is the federal HR 6220 or “Ban the Box Act” introduced last July, which similar to these state and local laws, would make it illegal for an employer to ask about criminal history in an interview or on an employment application.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

New Texas law limits negligent hiring and negligent supervision suits against employers

Rather than denying employers access to potentially consequential information about a candidate’s criminal past, a new Texas law is striving to curb lawsuits against employers. Signed into law on June 14, 2013 and effective September 1, 2013, HB 1188 amends the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to prohibit most causes of action “against an employer, general contractor, premises owner, or other third-party solely for negligently hiring or failing to adequately supervise an employee, based on evidence that the employee has been convicted of an offense.”

Notably, the statute provides exceptions that allow claims if the employer knew or should have known its employee was convicted of: (1) an offense “that was committed while performing duties substantially similar to those reasonably expected to be performed in the employment, or under conditions substantially similar to those reasonably expected to be encountered in the employment;” (2) a sexually violent offense; or (3) certain offenses specified in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 42.12- Section 3g including but not limited to murder, indecency with a child, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and aggravated robbery.

The protections under this statute do not apply in actions “concerning the misuse of funds or property of a person other than the employer, general contractor, premises owner, or third party by an employee if, on the date the employee was hired, the employee had been convicted of a crime that includes fraud or the misuse of funds or property as an element of the offense, and it was foreseeable that the position for which the employee was hired would involve discharging a fiduciary responsibility in the management of funds or property.”

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Minnesota becomes the latest state to restrict employment criminal checks

On May 13, 2012, Minnesota became the latest state to restrict criminal background checks for employment purposes with its Criminal Background Check Act (S.F. No. 523). Under the new law, which will go into effect on January 1, 2014, public and private employers may not inquire about, consider or require disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history until after the applicant has been granted an interview or before a conditional offer of employment is made. Since 2009, Minnesota law prohibited only public employers from asking about criminal records on job applications.

According to a report from the National Employment Law Project (the “NELP”) dated in April 2013, six states and 50 localities have adopted “Ban the Box” legislation. And pending before Congress is the federal HR 6220 or “Ban the Box Act” introduced last July by Representative Hansen Clarke (D-MI-13) which similar to these state and local laws, would make it illegal for an employer to ask about criminal history in an interview or on an employment application.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Colorado joins list of states that restrict credit report use for employment

Although the FCRA allows employers to consider credit reports for employment purposes, state laws that are more protective of employee rights trump the federal law. Eight states (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont and Washington) and at least one locality, the City of Chicago, limit the employers’ consideration of credit history in personnel decisions. And Colorado was just added to this list with its S.B. 18 that was signed into law on April 19, 2013. Aggressive legislative efforts are likely to continue. The most restrictive bill yet is pending before the New York City Council. It would prohibit employers from using credit reports in hiring except in few instances where such checks are required by law.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Do you know about the Right to Know Act?

The recently introduced “Right to Know Act of 2013” (Assembly Bill 1291), would require any business that retains or shares personal information of California residents to provide, at no charge and within 30 days of receiving a request from the subject, all information retained about him/her, as well as the names and contact information for all third parties to whom that business has disclosed the information within the last 12 months. This legislation is a significant expansion of the rights provided under California’s 2003 Shine the Light law, which this bill would repeal.

|Legislation|

Ponzi and pyramid schemes top SEC’s closed complaints list in fiscal year 2012

During fiscal year 2012, the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy closed 29,291 files relating to complaints, questions, and other issues received from investors, a decrease of 4,341 files compared to FY 2011. Complaints related to Ponzi and pyramid schemes were up 1,328%. A footnote to the data states that “the vast majority of these complaints related to a particular highly publicized SEC enforcement action.” Complaints related to specific market events were up 565% which too had a footnote. In this case, the vast majority of the complaints related to a particular highly publicized initial public offering…

|Legislation|

Most service providers are not subject to Red Flags Rule

The Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) interim final rule which became effective February 11, 2013 confirms that most service providers are not subject to the Red Flags Rule. The rule clarifies the meaning of “creditor” ensuring that its definition is consistent with the revised definition of that term in the amended Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”). A “creditor” must develop and implement a written identity theft prevention program premised on identifying “red flags” of identity theft only if in the ordinary course of business, the “creditor” regularly: 1) obtains or uses consumer reports in connection with a credit transaction; 2) furnishes information to consumer reporting agencies in connection with a credit transaction; or 3) advances funds to or on behalf of a person, in certain cases.

However, any entity collecting consumer data must remain vigilant in how it collects, uses and safeguards that data. The FTC may pursue enforcement actions under the FTC Act when a company does not take reasonable privacy protection measures scaled to the risk level of their business practices.

|Educational Series, Legislation|

Proposed New Jersey bills restrict use of criminal records in employment decisions

In February 2013, identical bills aimed at reducing employment discrimination against individuals with criminal histories were introduced in the New Jersey Senate (S2586) and the New Jersey Assembly (A3837). Both bills propose the adoption of the Opportunity to Compete Act (the “Act”) which would impose multiple restrictions and requirements on employers in connection with seeking and using criminal background information about job applicants. If the Act is adopted, New Jersey will join a growing list of states, cities, and localities which have passed similar anti-discrimination legislation.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

CFPB’s takeover of FCRA enforcement requires new notices by January 1, 2013

In July 2012, the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act assumed rulemaking and enforcement authority of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).

Although more changes are likely to come, beginning January 1, 2013, businesses, including employers, and consumer reporting agencies, will be required to provide a new version of the “Summary of Rights” form to individuals before taking any adverse action based on the contents of a consumer report. Notably, the adverse action process that must be followed under the FCRA has not changed; the revisions are generally stylistic and substitute “CFPB” for references to the FTC. There is also an updated and expanded list of contacts included at the end of the form.

To download the PDF versions of the updated Summary of Rights, and forms regarding the obligations of users and furnishers of consumer reports, click on the links below.

Summary of Rights under the FCRA.pdf

Obligations of Users of Consumer Reports under the FCRA.pdf

Obligations of Furnishers of Consumer Reports.pdf

|Legislation|

FTC’s civil rights testimony recaps FCRA obligations and aggressive enforcement

On December 7, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), submitted its written testimony to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission on the use of criminal background checks in employment decisions. The Commission intends to apply the testimony in reviewing the EEOC’s guidance that an employer’s use of an individual’s criminal history in making employment decisions may, in some instances, violate the prohibition against employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC suggests that minorities are disproportionately likely to have criminal records, which means that when employers use criminal background reports, minorities are possibly affected more than other groups.

Notably, in its testimony, the FTC, which shares the authority for enforcing the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) with other federal agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) does not say anything substantial about civil rights.

The testimony does, however, provide a good recap of the legal rights and obligations prescribed by the FCRA when consumer reports are used for employment purposes, and highlights the FTC’s law enforcement efforts in this area. As its starting point, the testimony reminds that the FCRA imposes several requirements on consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) that provide consumer reports to employers, which include ensuring that the employer is in fact using the report for a permissible purpose. In the employment context, permissible purposes are limited to “employment, promotion, reassignment, or retention.” Thus, employers may only obtain a consumer report about applicants or employees, and may not simply use their status as employers to get information about competitors, opposing parties in litigation, or anyone else. Relatedly, under the permissible purpose requirement, CRAs must have reasonable procedures in place to ensure that the consumer report users are who they claim.

The CRAs also must comply with certain procedural requirements, such as giving all users of consumer reports a notice that informs them of their duties under the FCRA. The CRAs must obtain certifications from the employer that: (1) it is in compliance with the FCRA; and (2) it will not use consumer report information in violation of any federal or state equal employment opportunity laws or regulations.

Further, the FCRA mandates that CRAs follow “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information

[15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)].” It does not establish, however, a requirement of absolute accuracy and does not require that the CRAs guarantee that the reports are error-free.

If a CRA provides a report that has negative information about an applicant or employee that is based on public records — for example, tax liens, outstanding judgments, or criminal convictions — that CRA either has to notify the applicant or employee directly that it has provided the information to the employer, or has to adopt strict procedures to ensure that the information is complete and up to date [15 U.S.C. § 1681k(a)(1)-(2)]. Regardless of whether a CRA opts to provide the notice or adopt strict procedures, FCRA § 1681e(b), as noted above, requires CRAs to have “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.”]

The FCRA also places specific obligations upon employers to provide certain disclosures to the applicants or employees, and obtain their written authorization before using consumer reports. If an employer intends to take an adverse action based either in whole or in part on the information in a consumer report, such as denying a job application, reassigning or terminating an employee, or denying a promotion, the employer must provide the applicant or employee with a pre-adverse action notice before taking the action. The pre-adverse action notice must include a copy of the consumer report on which the employer is relying and a summary of rights under the FCRA. The form, which recently was reissued by the CFPB, describes the consumers’ rights under the FCRA, including the right to obtain copies of their consumer reports and dispute information.

Once the employer has taken the adverse action, it must give the applicant or employee a notice that the action was based on information in the consumer report. This adverse action notice must include the name, address, and phone number of the CRA that supplied the report, and must inform the applicant or employee of his or her right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information in the report, and the right to obtain a free report from the CRA upon request within 60 days. Even though a consumer has the right to dispute errors, the CRAs and furnishers of information to the CRAs typically are allowed thirty days to investigate the consumer’s dispute, and the information may not be corrected in time to affect the consumer’s consideration for a particular job.

The FTC points out that it has pursued an aggressive law enforcement program to ensure that CRAs, furnishers, and consumer report users (including employers) comply with their responsibilities under the FCRA, providing details of recent lawsuits for FCRA violations that resulted in civil penalties against CRAs ranging from $800,000 to $2.6 million. Its recent actions against employers included charges against railroad contractors for failing to provide pre-adverse action and adverse action notices to employees who were fired and job applicants who were rejected based on information in their consumer reports. Under negotiated settlement orders, the companies were required to pay penalties in the amount of $1,000 per violation, and are subject to specific injunctive, record-keeping, and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with the FCRA.

The FTC’s enforcement actions and the latest wave of class action lawsuits enforce that FCRA compliance must be a priority for employers, CRAs and furnishers of information alike.

|Educational Series, Legislation|